Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.

That's where you are wrong. Houston is like LA circa 1970 right now. Growing like mad but beginning to face problems like horrible traffic, smog, air pollution, etc... Oddly enough, LA has addressed a lot of those issues with environmentalism and the LA basin has increased population density quite a bit and completed subway lines, etc... that have alleviated some of the problems where the pollution levels in 2010 are far lower in LA than they were in 1979 despite having many millions more people.

Austin is LA circa 1950. We are not near our prime, and if we plan well we can learn from the mistakes of LA and Houston.

LOL, you use LA as an example, and yest with all the problems LA faced in the 70, it has been 40 years later and no one is even close to even catching upto it.

Why do you think Austin will catch upto Houston when Houston has passed its prime and still spanking Austin which is in its prime.

any fool would know that in order for one city to pass another either the bigger city must suffer from some natural or economic disaster or the smaller city must be gaining more people (not a higher percentage) than the larger city.

When Austin starts gaining double the number that houston gains, you can come back with that argument.

In 2010 I agree, but we're talking 2050 and if we extrapolate current trends, Austin just may be in the same league then. Of course, the point of much of my argument was that other than analyzing what happened in the past, we really can't predict any further than a few years out anyway. I could make a case that Austin would be larger than Houston in 2050, just as some posters here could make a case that Houston would be larger than Chicago, or aghast: Dallas. Of course, one could make arguments against those presumptions as well, hence my 1950 LA analogy and how they thought LA would surpass NYC.

If anyone needs some articles on this I would be happy to provide the source.

yes, in 40 years Austin may be where Houston is now,, ie in 40 years in the future Austin will be where Houston was 40 years in the past, but by then Houston would have 40 years of growth added. Houston Should be close to 10M people by then.

but anyway, I don't see Austin gaining 5M people in 40 years.
There is just not enough industry and infrastructure to support that many.
plus y'all would reek havoc on the edwards aquifer.

The same reason why the Intermountain West grew faster percentage-wise than California even when California was posting bigger gains numerically during the 1980's and 1990's. You have to look at trends in percentages and see that the trending is for increased percentages to Austin and decreased percentages to Houston. You could argue the decreased percentages to Houston are because numerically it's harder to keep the same percentage, but that doesn't explain the increased percentage to Austin. There is a higher percentage of people moving to Austin in 2010 than there was in 1990, and there are more people here.

This is the phenomenon that saw Las Vegas rise from a small metro of 250,000 in 1990 to 1.2 million in 2005. Houston never saw that kind of growth, it was more of a sustained constant growth.

You said most people in Austin didn't like the growth. That's true and I don't like it either, but that doesn't mean it's not happening! Just because I don't like something doesn't mean I can wish it away, just as how you imagine Houston becoming larger than Chicago and it ain't happening either... I go by facts not wishes.

using your numbers Las Vegas Gained 900K people in 10 years. Houston has been gaining that number of people every decade for the last 5 decades.

You are talking about growth of small towns. That is how it is. But for that small town to make something of itself it has to actually gain numbers not percentages. Austin is in its prime and it is not gaining anywhere near as many people to catch up

using your numbers Las Vegas Gained 900K people in 10 years. Houston has been gaining that number of people every decade for the last 5 decades.

You are talking about growth of small towns. That is how it is. But for that small town to make something of itself it has to actually gain numbers not percentages. Austin is in its prime and it is not gaining anywhere near as many people to catch up

You seem to not understand the dynamics of population change.

As a city increases in size, overall numbers of growth accelerate due to natural increase.

Here's a staggering figure for you. In terms of domestic migration, from 2000 to 2009 Austin actually gained about the same amount of people as Houston by domestic migration, despite being much smaller in population.

Population growth due to domestic migration:

Austin MSA: 234k
DFW MSA: 317k
Houston MSA: 243k

But, population growth due to natural increase in the MSAs' populations were (2000-2009):

Austin MSA: 157k
DFW MSA: 611k
Houston MSA: 552k

Of course, the birthrates aren't much different between the three MSAs--the difference is merely a product of size.

So, yes, theoretically if Austin maintains current levels of domestic migration and the birth rate increases proportionally with its size, it could absolutely match the growth rates of the Houston and DFW MSAs. Whether it could catch up depends on if domestic migration falls tremendously (to mass out-migration, such as, e.g., greater NYC) in DFW or Houston, which is unlikely.

As a city increases in size, overall numbers of growth accelerate due to natural increase.

Here's a staggering figure for you. In terms of domestic migration, Austin actually gained more people--not in terms of percentages, but in raw numbers--than the Houston MSA, and a comparable amount to DFW.

Population growth due to domestic migration:

Austin MSA: 208k
DFW MSA: 269k
Houston MSA: 191k

But, population growth due to natural increase in the MSAs' populations were:

Austin MSA: 139k
DFW MSA: 543k
Houston MSA: 488k

Of course, the birthrates aren't much different between the three MSAs--the difference is merely a product of size.

So, yes, theoretically if Austin maintains current levels of domestic migration and the birth rate increases proportionally with its size, it could absolutely match the growth rates of the Houston and DFW MSAs. Whether it could catch up depends on if domestic migration falls tremendously (to mass out-migration, such as, e.g., greater NYC) in DFW or Houston, which is unlikely.

you are the one not understanding the dynamics of populationhange

you posted numbers showing that if you add the domestic migration and the natural increase of Austin together, it doesn't even add up to the natural increase of Houston..

how the heck is austin going to catch up if it is gaining far less people???

it is like saying that Gilbert AZ is gonna catch up to NY because NY has a 5% growth rate andGilberthas a 400% growth rate.

donm't you know that growth rate slow down to next to nothing before most cities hit the big leagues???

geez, how silly can some people be do you think Austin's birth rate is gonna increase with its size and Houston's isn't??? lol. to catch up you need people pouring in, you can't catch up on birth
rate that is just flat out nonsense

That's where you are wrong. Houston is like LA circa 1970 right now. Growing like mad but beginning to face problems like horrible traffic, smog, air pollution, etc... Oddly enough, LA has addressed a lot of those issues with environmentalism and the LA basin has increased population density quite a bit and completed subway lines, etc... that have alleviated some of the problems where the pollution levels in 2010 are far lower in LA than they were in 1979 despite having many millions more people.

You do realize that Houston is the only major metro in America to reduce traffic congestion since 2000 right? Plus, rail expansion is underway. Houston already has the nation's best Park and Ride and HOV system (over 250K weekday commuters).

Quote:

Austin is LA circa 1950. We are not near our prime, and if we plan well we can learn from the mistakes of LA and Houston.

Well, Austin sure hasn't had a good start.

Quote:

We may not have the best roads, but our commute times are still lower than Houston's and we have among the lowest crime rates in the country, compared to Houston having among the highest crime rates (and don't mention Katrina, you had high crime prior to Katrina). This is important to most people.

Austin commute times are not that much lower than Houston. Austin has some of the worst traffic for a city its size. No one knows where they are going in Austin when they drive on the freeways. People are always switching lanes so frequently because the freeways are poorly designed and there isn't enough of them. Plus, no one even rides the rail in Austin, which is also poorly designed. Don't know what they were thinking there. And of course Houston has higher crime than Austin. Houston is three times the size of the Austin area, so what do you expect. And Katrina? That was over five years ago.

Quote:

You can live with your nose in the sand, but only so long. Everyone I've met from Houston that moved to Austin said nobody could pay them to ever live in Houston again. Those that I know that moved to Houston did it "for a career move, but I'll be back in a few years as I hate Houston."

This is all lies. There are a few Houston forumers that are from Austin that moved to Houston that think the exact opposite (AK123 is on). And I know a few people in real life who did the same thing. Austin is cool for your 20s, but after that it's time to find a city with an actual professional sports team, actual museums and performance arts that aren't tied to a university (so professional arts), a city that hosts more national events (Super Bowls, Final Fours, conventions, etc.), and so much more. You really need to stop comparing Austin to Houston, because they don't compare. Austin is tiny.

Quote:

Also, the Austin-San Antonio corridor with eventually become one MSA, and many counties in the Hill Country will too, so if people move to the Hill country that won't be an issue.

The commuting percentages aren't even close enough to make it a CSA, let alone an MSA, so keep on dreaming.

Quote:

Originally Posted by feconi

You seem to not understand the dynamics of population change.

As a city increases in size, overall numbers of growth accelerate due to natural increase.

Here's a staggering figure for you. In terms of domestic migration, Austin actually gained more people--not in terms of percentages, but in raw numbers--than the Houston MSA, and a comparable amount to DFW.

Population growth due to domestic migration:

Austin MSA: 208k
DFW MSA: 269k
Houston MSA: 191k

But, population growth due to natural increase in the MSAs' populations were:

Austin MSA: 139k
DFW MSA: 543k
Houston MSA: 488k

Of course, the birthrates aren't much different between the three MSAs--the difference is merely a product of size.

So, yes, theoretically if Austin maintains current levels of domestic migration and the birth rate increases proportionally with its size, it could absolutely match the growth rates of the Houston and DFW MSAs. Whether it could catch up depends on if domestic migration falls tremendously (to mass out-migration, such as, e.g., greater NYC) in DFW or Houston, which is unlikely.

Yes. but this is because Houston wasn't attracting as many new domestic residents earlier in the decade and Austin was. In fact, just this past year, Houston had twice as many new domestic residents move in than Austin. Houston has gained more new domestic residents in the past few years. Plus, you conveniently left off international migration, where Austin is pretty low. Houston gains about five times as many new international residents than Austin annually.

Edit: Researched, and Austin DID NOT gain more people domestically than Houston. Everything else is still true (Houston having double the new domestic residents that Austin had last year, etc.).

Quote:

Originally Posted by HtownLove

yes, in 40 years Austin may be where Houston is now,, ie in 40 years in the future Austin will be where Houston was 40 years in the past, but by then Houston would have 40 years of growth added. Houston Should be close to 10M people by then.

but anyway, I don't see Austin gaining 5M people in 40 years.
There is just not enough industry and infrastructure to support that many.
plus y'all would reek havoc on the edwards aquifer.

Yes, cBach seems to think Austin will grow and grow, but how? Austin has kiddy industries compared to what goes on in Houston. What does Austin have? Tech, some tourism, and probably some distribution. Houston has the energy industry (king), medical industry (Texas Medical Center), tourism (two new theme parks planned for Houston: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanantoni...13/story5.html), the Port of Houston (do some research on that and the Panama Canal expansion in 2014 cBach), and so much more. Austin can't keep up. It won't be passing Houston.

you posted numbers showing that if you add the domestic migration and the natural increase of Austin together, it doesn't even add up to the natural increase of Houston..

how the heck is austin going to catch up if it is gaining far less people???

it is like saying that Gilbert AZ is gonna catch up to NY because NY has a 5% growth rate andGilberthas a 400% growth rate.

donm't you know that growth rate slow down to next to nothing before most cities hit the big leagues???

geez, how silly can some people be

Evidently you are incredibly dense, so I'll take this one slow and provide plenty of examples.

Say Austin continues to grow by ~230k/decade in domestic migration, but Houston starts to fall in domestic migration and eventually turns negative (as was the case last decade for all the largest metro areas--NYC, LA, Chicago, etc.).

Growth from natural increase can be considered to be a fraction of the MSA's population at that time. Once Austin has 2.5 million, growth due to natural increase may be over 250k/decade. At 4 million, 400k/decade, etc. Thus as the population increases, so does growth due to natural increase. Houston and DFW's growth is driven primarily by natural increase, not by migration.

When Houston hits 7 million people, it may see a population change due to natural increase of 700k, but could lose population due to out-migration, giving a lower population increase than Austin. Chicago and Austin MSAs grew roughly the same from 2000 to 2009. Chicago had a much higher rate of natural increase and much higher international migration numbers, but negative domestic migration (-561k) giving it similar overall growth. Who is to say that Houston and DFW may not show similar patterns in a decade or two?

Of course this is highly unlikely to ever happen, and nowhere did I say that I am arguing that it will happen--I am saying that it can happen, given this set of circumstances.

Yes. but this is because Houston wasn't attracting as many new domestic residents earlier in the decade and Austin was. In fact, just this past year, Houston had twice as many new domestic residents move in than Austin. Houston has gained more new domestic residents in the past few years. Plus, you conveniently left off international migration, where Austin is pretty low. Houston gains about five times as many new international residents than Austin annually.

Edit: Researched, and Austin DID NOT gain more people domestically than Houston. Everything else is still true (Houston having double the new domestic residents that Austin had last year, etc.).

The components of growth can be found here (which were edited in my original post; I had data from 2000 to 2008).

Of course, you "conveniently" say that I was wrong but don't post the numbers. Here they are, again (2000-2009):

Austin MSA: 234k
DFW MSA: 317k
Houston MSA: 243k

So a 4% difference in domestic migration for an MSA with well over 3x the population. Their total population gains are impressive, but both Houston and DFW's domestic migration numbers are quite unimpressive compared with Austin.

Evidently you are incredibly dense, so I'll take this one slow and provide plenty of examples.

Say Austin continues to grow by ~230k/decade in domestic migration, but Houston starts to fall in domestic migration and eventually turns negative (as was the case last decade for all the largest metro areas--NYC, LA, Chicago, etc.).

It appears you are banking on this to happen in Houston though. Unlike those cities, Houston is in Texas and has a great economy. Why do you think it will have a negative migration just because NYC, LA, and Chicago did (which all lost people to the Sunbelt...LA mostly to its neighbor Riverside-San Bernardino). This decade, Houston and DFW are going to probably grow faster than they did last decade, in my opinion. You should see what is going on in both cities. It's like all this expansion is going on now before the next big boom comes. Both of these cities have world industries (mostly Houston on this one, as DFW is tied to the US economy more). And realize, Houston increased its domestic migration as the decade went on.

Quote:

Growth from natural increase can be considered to be a fraction of the MSA's population at that time. Once Austin has 2.5 million, growth due to natural increase may be over 250k/decade. At 4 million, 400k/decade, etc. Thus as the population increases, so does growth due to natural increase. Houston and DFW's growth is driven primarily by natural increase, not by migration.

Of course, as will Austin once it gets larger. That's not to say that their populations aren't rapidly changing going off of domestic + international migration alone. Austin's numbers are TINY compared to DFW and Houston and you should stop comparing the two. Look at San Antonio and be happy you are growing faster than them. You aren't catching the two major Texas metros.

Quote:

When Houston hits 7 million people, it may see a population change due to natural increase of 700k, but could lose population due to out-migration, giving a lower population increase than Austin. Chicago and Austin MSAs grew roughly the same from 2000 to 2009. Chicago had a much higher rate of natural increase and much higher international migration numbers, but negative domestic migration (-561k) giving it similar overall growth. Who is to say that Houston and DFW may not show similar patterns in a decade or two?

But why are you assuming that Houston and DFW will have an out-migration? What is happening in Houston that will make it have an out-migration? Why won't Austin have an out-migration? People may become tired of the bumbled and poorly designed freeways and gridlock Austin has that is getting worse (Austin has some horrible commute times for a city its size, according to statistics...it's actually pretty close to Houston which is sad).

Quote:

Of course this is highly unlikely to ever happen, and nowhere did I say that I am arguing that it will happen--I am saying that it can happen, given this set of circumstances.

And Austin could also turn into a Las Vegas and start losing population before it ever gets to three million in the metro. You never know what is going to happen. Austin needs to invest in some better industries. Right now, what Austin has can't compete with Houston and DFW. Heck, Austin likes to call itself the Silicon Hills, but DFW has more jobs in telecommunications and IT than Austin does. Houston, contrary to popular belief, is not to far behind Austin in the number of IT workers, too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by feconi

The components of growth can be found here (which were edited in my original post; I had data from 2000 to 2008).

Of course, you "conveniently" say that I was wrong but don't post the numbers. Here they are, again (2000-2009):

Austin MSA: 234k
DFW MSA: 317k
Houston MSA: 243k

So a 4% difference in domestic migration for an MSA with well over 3x the population. Their total population gains are impressive, but both Houston and DFW's domestic migration numbers are quite unimpressive compared with Austin.

Here they are for international migration, BTW:

Austin MSA: 68k
DFW MSA: 335k
Houston MSA: 299k

I said you conveniently left off the international migration numbers, which you did in your first post, so I have no idea what the bolded means. Re-read my post.

Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.